We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

EU Tax Alert March 2016 - edition 153 The EU Tax Alert is an e-mail newsletter to inform you of recent developments in the EU that are of interest for tax professionals. It includes recent case law of the European Court of Justice, (proposed) direct tax and VAT legislation, customs, state aid, developments in the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg and more. To subscribe (free of charge) see: www.eutaxalert.com Please click here to unsubscribe from this mailing. 2 Highlights in this edition Tax Rulings II Committee investigates Google, Apple, IKEA and McDonalds On 15 March 2016, Google, Apple, Inter-IKEA Group and McDonald’s expressed their views at a public hearing, held by Parliament’s Special Committee on Tax Rulings II on the proposed directive against base erosion and profit shifting (anti-BEPS), which follows an agreement struck at OECD and G20 levels. Also the anticipated common consolidated corporate tax base and company specific tax were subject to debate. Council agrees on exchange of tax-related information on multinationals and adopts conclusions on the code of conduct on business taxation On 8 March 2016, the Council adopted conclusions on the strengthening of a code of conduct aimed at eliminating measures that can create situations of unfair competition. Furthermore, the Council agreed - pending the European Parliament’s opinion - on a draft directive on the exchange of tax-related information on the activities of multinational companies. Final judgment Netherlands Supreme Court in the cases Miljoen, X and Société Générale On 4 March 2016, the Netherlands Supreme Court issued its final decision in three cases that had previously been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) for a preliminary ruling (joint cases Miljoen (C-10/14), X (C-14/14) and Société Générale S.A. (C-17/14)). The cases deal with refund requests of the Netherlands, 15% withholding tax imposed on dividends paid to two individual taxpayers resident in Belgium and one corporate taxpayer resident in France. General Court upholds unlawful aid decision with respect to German Sanierungsklausel On 4 February 2016, the General Court issued judgements considering that German rules setting aside the normal restriction on loss carry over after a takeover constitutes unlawful granted aid. 3 Contents Highlights in this edition • Tax Rulings II Committee investigates Google, Apple, IKEA and McDonalds • Council agrees on exchange of tax-related information on multinationals and adopts conclusions on the code of conduct on business taxation • Final judgment Netherlands Supreme Court in the cases Miljoen, X and Société Générale • General Court upholds unlawful aid decision with respect to German Sanierungsklausel State Aid / WTO • Norwegian 0% VAT rate for electronic news approved Direct taxation • EU and the Principality of Monaco initial new tax transparency agreement • AG Wathelet opines that German legislation concerning the calculation of the transfer duties payable in respect of the gift of a piece of land in Germany contravenes the free movement of capital (Hünnebeck) • AG Campos Sánchez-Borgona opines that Luxembourg legislation that limits granting a tax credit to pensioners that satisfy certain conditions contravenes the free movement of workers (Kohll) VAT • CJ rules that the Netherlands’ exemption for water sports is both too broad and too narrow (Commission v the Netherlands) • AG Opines that EU VAT Directive precludes national legislation under which correction of an invoice has no retroactive effect (Senatex) • AG Opines on rules for taxation of private use at cessation of economic activity in respect of capital goods for which the VAT adjustment period has already expired (Jan Mateusiak) • AG Opines on requirements for a correct and complete description of services on invoices (Barlis 06 – Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA) • European Commission holds orientation debate on the future for VAT in the EU • Opinion EESC on obligation to respect minimum standard rate Customs Duties, Excises and other Indirect Taxes • Council adopts conclusions on the structure and rates of excise duties applicable to manufactured tobacco • CJ rules on the customs classification of video multiplexers (G.E. Security) • CJ rules on the levying of excise for oil missing during transport (BP Europa SE) • CJ rules on the customs classification of effervescent tablets containing 500 mg calcium (Salutas Pharma GmbH) • AG Opinion on the notion of ‘commercial use’ for the exemption of duty for temporarily imported helicopters (Robert Fuchs A.G.) 4 McDonalds McDonalds’ representative welcomed the anti-BEPS proposal, saying it would create a “clearer, simpler and more consistent international tax regime”. In any event they are concerned about unilateral approaches that will result if the BEPS directives are not harmonised in a holistic manner. McDonalds is not in favour of public reporting by country as that could harm competition. Inter-IKEA Group Inter-IKEA Group ‘s representative made comments on the presented research from Greens according to which they accuse the company of dodging tax through royalty operations via the Netherlands and Liechtenstein. According to Inter-IKEA Group’s representative some of the assumptions upon which the report was based were false. It was further stated that the anti-BEPS proposal should be aligned inside and outside the EU, that bureaucracy must be avoided and that a mechanism for rapid dispute settlement would be highly welcome. Council agrees on exchange of taxrelated information on multinationals and adopts conclusions on the code of conduct on business taxation On 8 March 2016, the Council adopted conclusions on the strengthening of a code of conduct aimed at eliminating measures that can create situations of unfair competition. Furthermore, the Council agreed - pending the European Parliament’s opinion - on a draft directive on the exchange of tax-related information on the activities of multinational companies. Code of Conduct In 2013, the European Council called for the code process to be strengthened. Since then, work has been undertaken to reform the scope and governance of the working group. The Council’s conclusions foresee an enhancement of the governance, transparency and working methods of the group. Highlights in this edition Tax Rulings II Committee investigates Google, Apple, IKEA and McDonalds On 15 March 2016, Google, Apple, Inter-IKEA Group and McDonald’s expressed their views at a public hearing, held by Parliament’s Special Committee on Tax Rulings II on the proposed directive against base erosion and profit shifting (anti-BEPS), which follows an agreement struck at OECD and G20 levels. They specifically asked about the proposed requirement for country-by-country reporting of profits, taxes and subsidies and whether such information should be made public. Also the anticipated common consolidated corporate tax base (CCCTB) and company specific tax structures - such as Google’s “Bermuda” structure, IKEA’s “royalties” one, Apple’s tax arrangements in Ireland and McDonalds’ franchises - were subject to debate. Google The representative from Google said that HMRC had looked into its transfer pricing arrangements and concluded that certain benchmarks needed to be adjusted. According to the expressed views that is normal for multinational companies, adding that Google pays a global effective tax rate of 19% and that the EU’s overall rate is around 20%. Google has serious reservations about the Commission’s CCCTB plans, which would increase costs for Google as it would require an establishment in every EU country. Ultimately for Google this would be contrary to the principle of the internal market. Apple In 2015 Apple paid 13.2 billion dollars in taxes worldwide, which is an effective tax rate of 36.4%. However, Apple’s representatives were not prepared to disclose its EU and Irish tax figures. Apple, like Google, pays most of its taxes in the US, where most of its employees are based and its research is done. 5 Remaining anti-tax avoidance package As concerns work on the rest of anti-tax avoidance package, the presidency has set an ambitious timetable. The Council held a first exchange of views on 12 February 2016. The presidency is planning for an agreement on 25 May 2016 on a proposal to tackle some of the most prevalent tax avoidance practices. Final judgment of Netherlands Supreme Court in cases Miljoen, X and Société Générale On 4 March 2016, the Netherlands Supreme Court issued its final judgment in three cases that had previously been referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) for a preliminary ruling (joint cases Miljoen (C-10/14), X (C-14/14) and Société Générale S.A. (C-17/14)). The cases deal with refund requests of the Netherlands, 15% withholding tax imposed on dividends paid to two individual taxpayers resident in Belgium and one corporate taxpayer resident in France. Based on these judgments, individuals residing abroad who have portfolio shareholdings in Netherlands companies should review their tax position and could possibly apply for a (partial) refund of Netherlands dividend withholding tax provided a tax treaty between the State of residence and the Netherlands does not result in an effective credit of the Netherlands withholding tax with the income tax in the State of residence. This refund can be claimed for the past three years, and perhaps even the past five years. The CJ had ruled that a comparison between the tax burdens of resident and non-resident taxpayers with respect to the dividend income has to be made based on the total tax burden suffered by resident taxpayers (i.e. personal/corporate income tax) and non-resident taxpayers (i.e. final withholding tax). In the cases Miljoen and X, the CJ had ruled that capital exempted from income tax (heffingsvrij vermogen) must be taken into account in determining the total income tax on shares held in Netherlands companies. The CJ had stated that it is for the Netherlands Supreme Court to decide how to take this into account. In today’s judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that when determining the total income tax due Efficiency will be improved by speeding up the assessment of potentially harmful tax regimes, with an earlier and more frequent involvement of the Council. Information to the public on the group’s ongoing and past work will be enhanced. Exchange of tax-related information on multinationals The purpose of this directive is to implement, at EU level, an OECD recommendation requiring multinationals to report tax-related information, detailed countryby-country, and requiring national tax authorities to exchange that information automatically. The directive will transpose the OECD recommendation on country-bycountry reporting (BEPS action 13) into a legally binding EU instrument. The draft directive sets out to incite multinationals to pay their taxes in the country where profits are made. Information to be reported, on a country-by-country basis, includes revenues, profits, taxes paid, capital, earnings, tangible assets and the number of employees. Under the directive, a multinational company will be obliged to file its country-by-country report to the tax authorities of the member state where it is tax resident, already for the 2016 fiscal year. If the group’s parent company is not EU tax resident and does not file a report, it will do so through its EU subsidiaries. Such “secondary reporting” will be mandatory as from the 2017 fiscal year; it will be optional in 2016. The tax authorities will have to exchange the reports automatically, so that any tax avoidance risks related to transfer pricing can be assessed. For this, the directive will build on the EU’s existing framework for automatic exchange between tax authorities, established by Directive 2011/16/EU. The directive will set deadlines of 12 months after the fiscal year for filing, and a further three months for automatic exchange and will ensure harmonised implementation of the OECD recommendation on country-by-country reporting, including by 7 member states that are not members of the OECD. The Council will adopt the directive once the European Parliament has given its opinion and national parliamentary reservations have been lifted, and once the text is finalised in all languages. 6 State Aid/WTO Norwegian 0% VAT rate for electronic news approved The EFTA Surveillance authority approved of a 0% VAT rate for electronic news services that contain news and current affairs contents, targeted at the general public. The medium should have an editor-in-chief to guarantee its independency, quality and trustworthiness and be published at least once a week. Each digital edition must have at least 50% new and internally produced content. As promoting media pluralism and diversity is deemed an objective of common interest, the Authority decided to raise no objections to the 0% rate. The rate may help business models for news production to survive by maintaining a high level of production and consumption of high quality news. The proposed rate will take away the difference in VAT treatment between distribution platforms, as newspapers are currently also subject to a 0% rate. The rate will be available to services provided by foreign news media as well. (Be advised that Norway, as an EFTA Member, is not bound by the EU’s VAT Directive.) Direct Taxation EU and the Principality of Monaco initial new tax transparency agreement On 22 February 2016, the EU and Monaco have today initialled a new tax transparency agreement. This agreement provides that Monaco and EU Member States will automatically exchange information on the financial accounts of one another’s residents from 2018. The information will start being collected from 1 January 2017. Under the new agreement, EU Member States will receive the names, addresses, tax identification numbers and dates of birth of their residents with accounts in Monaco, as well as certain other financial information, including account balances. The procedure envisaged complies with the new OECD and G20 global standard on automatic exchange of information. Stepping up information exchange will enable the tax authorities to on all shares in Netherlands companies held by a nonresident individual, the capital exempted from income tax can fully be attributed to the shares held in Netherlands companies. This means that the capital exempted from income tax does not have to be divided pro rata between all shares held in Netherlands companies and other capital, which is a beneficial outcome for the taxpayer. In the case of Société Générale, the CJ had ruled that the Netherlands Supreme Court can take account (only) of expenses which are directly linked to the actual payment of the dividends. The CJ furthermore had ruled that neither financing costs concerning the acquisition of shares, nor purchased dividends are directly linked to the actual payment of the dividends. Following this judgment, the Netherlands Advocate General rendered a Supplemental Opinion in which he concluded that the Netherlands Supreme Court should disregard the finding of the CJ that (effectively) purchased dividends are not directly linked to the dividends received by Société Générale and advised that the Supreme Court should refer the case back to a court of appeal for further fact finding. However, in today’s judgment the Netherlands Supreme Court disregarded this Opinion and dismissed the case of Société Générale on the grounds that, when disregarding financing costs and purchased dividends, the total tax burden of Société Générale on the dividends was not higher than the total tax burden of a Netherlands resident would have been. General Court upholds unlawful aid decision with respect to German Sanierungsklausel In 2011, the Commission ruled that a German rule setting aside the normal restriction on loss carry over after a takeover to be unlawfully granted aid. The restriction was set aside in the case of a takeover done with the intention to restructure ailing companies. The General Court agreed that excluding ailing companies from such a restriction did not fit within the objective of the general tax system of which the anti-abuse provision was a part. It therefore decided to uphold the Commission’s decision finding the aid selective (Cases T-287/11 and T-620/11 of 4 February 2016). 7 The German tax authorities rejected the appeal, considering that the German legislation already gave the possibility to benefit from this higher personal allowance by granting the possibility to opt to be treated as a German resident. In this case, all transfers made in the previous or subsequent 10 years following the transfer of the assets would be treated as subject to unlimited tax liability. AG Wathelet started by referring that the ability to opt for unlimited tax liability did not preclude the discriminatory tax treatment. In that regard, the AG made reference to the CJ judgment in the Gielen case (C-440/08) where the Court ruled that the possibility for a non-resident taxable person to avoid a discriminatory tax regime by opting for one which was ostensibly not discriminatory (in that case, the regime applicable to residents), ‘such a choice is not (...) capable of remedying the discriminatory effects of the first of those two tax regimes’ or of ‘validat[ing] a tax regime which, in itself, remains contrary to Article 49 TFEU by reason of its discriminatory nature’. Therefore, the AG concluded that the possibility for nonresident taxpayers to benefit from the allowance reserved for resident taxpayers by opting for the inheritance and gift tax scheme for residents did not remedy the incompatibility with the free movement of capital. Lastly, the AG analysed the procedures for exercising the option offered to non-residents to choose the inheritance and gift tax scheme for residents and the consequences of that choice. As regards, first, the procedures for exercising that option, since that option is available only for taxable persons residing in the territory of Member States of the EU or the EEA, the AG considered that excluding residents of third countries is contrary to the free movement of capital. As regards the consequences of exercising the option at issue, the AG observed that in the present case there is an indisputable difference in treatment between residents and non-residents, since the period to be taken into account for transfers which is laid down for non-residents (ten years before and after the transfer) is considerably longer than the period laid down for residents (ten years before the transfer). In the case of multiple transfers, that better tackle fraudsters, at the same time acting as a deterrent for those who are tempted to hide income and assets abroad. The EU signed similar agreements in 2015 with Switzerland, San Marino, Liechtenstein and, this year, with Andorra. The formal signature of the new agreement is expected to take place before summer, as soon as the Council authorizes the Commission’s proposal. AG Wathelet opines that German legislation concerning the calculation of the transfer duties payable in respect of the gift of a piece of land in Germany contravenes the free movement of capital (Hünnebeck) On 18 February 2016, AG Wathelet delivered his Opinion in case Sabine Hünnebeck v Finanzamt Krefeld (C-479/14). The case deals with the legislation regarding the calculation of the transfer duties payable in respect of the gift of a piece of land in Germany, when neither the donor nor the recipient of the gift resides in that Member State. Specifically, the case deals with the compatibility with EU law of the amendments to the German legislation in accordance with which the higher tax allowance reserved for German residents is applicable to a gift between non-residents of an asset situated in Germany if the donee requests that the gift be subject to the tax scheme for residents (unlimited tax liability). Ms Hünnebeck and her two daughters are German nationals residing in the UK. Ms Hünnebeck was a co-owner of a piece of land located in German that was donated to the two daughters. It was stipulated in the transfer agreement that Ms Hünnebeck would be liable for any gift tax which might become payable. In calculating the amount of the transfer duties to be paid, the German tax authorities applied the EUR 2,000 share of personal allowance that was granted to nonresident German persons. Ms Hünnebeck appealed from this decision requesting for the application of the EUR 400,000 personal allowance that was applied to German residents as otherwise, non-residents would be subject to a less favourable tax treatment. 8 He then proceeded with the concrete analysis of the Luxembourg legislation. First of all, he started by observing that the legislation at stake deprives of a tax benefit, the tax credit, to a pensioner whose pension does not come from a Luxembourg pension fund or other Luxembourg institution liable for payment. That difference in treatment could deter both workers in Luxembourg who wish to seek employment in another Member State, and Luxembourg workers, or workers who are nationals of other Member States, who wish to settle in Luxembourg after their retirement. In addition and insofar as the lack of a tax deduction document, and what that entails, will lead to refusal to pay the tax credit to nationals of other Member States in a higher proportion than to Luxembourg nationals, since it will be the former in particular who will receive pensions from other Member States. Therefore, he concluded that the legislation at issue constituted a restriction of the free movement of workers. As regards possible justifications, the AG rejected the need to preserve the coherence of the tax system. In this regard, the AG referred to the absence of a direct link between the tax benefit and the tax offsetting it. According to the AG, the connection to which the Luxembourg Government refers is concerned with the tax benefit in relation to the technique of the deduction but not in relation to another tax created in order to counter the loss of tax revenue caused by the grant of the tax credit. In what refers to the need to safeguard the balanced allocation of the powers of taxation between Member States, the AG also considered it inappropriate taking into account the fact that pursuant to Article 19 of the applicable double tax treaty, Luxembourg was granted the power to tax both pensions received by pensioners from pension funds in that Member State and pensions originating in the Netherlands. In any event and even if the Court should accept that the legislation at issue would be justified, the AG nevertheless considered it not proportional, notably due to the existence of less onerous methods, namely, the option of providing for a deduction from the amount of tax equal to the maximum amount of the tax credit. difference in treatment could easily lead to non-residents being taxed more heavily. Therefore, he concluded that such difference is in breach of the free movement of capital. AG Campos Sánchez-Borgona opines that Luxembourg legislation that limits granting a tax credit to pensioners that satisfy certain conditions contravenes the free movement of workers (Kohll) On 16 February 2016, AG Campos Sánchez-Borgona delivered his Opinion in Charles Kohll and Sylvie KohllSchlesser v Directeur de l’administration des contributions directes (C-300/15). The case deals with the compatibility with EU law of the Luxembourg legislation which grants a tax credit to pensioners who satisfy certain conditions, notably that the pensions or annuities refer to income which Luxembourg has the right to tax and the taxpayers are in possession of a tax deduction document. The case deals with two pensions of Netherlands origin paid to Mr Kohll and taxable in Luxembourg pursuant to Article 19 of the applicable double tax treaty. Those pensions paid during the years of 2009, 2010 and 2011 were not subject to deduction at source in Luxembourg, reason by which Mr Kohll was not entitled to a tax credit. He objected to this decision considering that the refusal to grant tax credits to persons whose pensions are not subject to deduction at source in Luxembourg excludes those whose pensions are not subject to that deduction, thereby restricting the grant of tax credits to persons receiving their pension from a pension fund in Luxembourg. In that connection, he claimed that it would constitute an infringement of the free movement of workers affirmed in Article 45 TFEU. As a preliminary issue, the AG started by determining the applicable fundamental freedom. In this regard, it considered that the income received by Mr Kohll from his two pensions constituted rights acquired through his status of a worker having exercised freedom of movement as a worker, and those rights are protected under Article 45 TFEU, in the light of which the provision of national law at issue should be examined. 9 AG Opines that EU VAT Directive precludes national legislation under which correction of an invoice has no retroactive effect (Senatex) On 17 February 2016, Advocate General Bot delivered his Opinion in the case Senatex GmbH v Finanzamt Hannover-Nord (C‑518/14). Senatex GmbH (‘Senatex’) carries on a wholesale textile business. Senatex was subject to an audit by the tax authorities in relation to the years 2008-2011. It was found that commission statements and commercial designer invoices submitted for the purposes of input tax deduction were not proper invoices within the meaning of the German VAT Act, as these did not contain the tax number or the VAT identification number of the sales representatives or commercial designer. During the inspection period, Senatex corrected the statements and invoices for the years 2009-2011 by adding the missing details. Notwithstanding those corrections, the tax authorities issued VAT assessments taking the view that the input VAT deduction in respect of the invoices at issue could not be made on the ground that the requirements for those deductions were met only when the corrections were made, namely in 2013, and not in the years 2009-2011. Senatex, however, took the view that the corrections made to the invoices had retroactive effect, as those corrections were made before the final administrative decision. The Finance Court of Lower Saxony had doubts as to the interpretation of the CJ’s judgments and the provisions of the EU VAT Directive and decided to refer to the CJ for a preliminary ruling. In particular, the questions raised concern, first, the effect which should be given to the correction of an incorrect or incomplete invoice in respect of the time when the right to deduct VAT may be exercised and, second, whether such correction may be limited in time. According to the AG, the EU VAT Directive must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which the correction of an invoice in relation to required details does not have retroactive effect, as a result of which the right to deduct VAT would only be exercisable for the year when the initial invoice was corrected and not for VAT CJ rules that the Netherlands’ exemption for water sports is both too broad and too narrow (Commission v the Netherlands) On 25 January 2016, the CJ delivered its judgment in the case Commission v the Netherlands (C-22/15), which case focusses on the VAT exemption for services closely linked to sport or physical education. The EU VAT Directive requires the Member States to exempt the supply of certain services closely linked to sport or physical education by non-profit-making organizations to persons taking part in sport or physical education. Based on this provision, the Netherlands VAT Act exempts from VAT the provision of services by sports associations to their members, with the exception of the services provided by water sports associations which, in order to provide their services, have recourse to one or more persons employed by them, in so far as those services consist of the carrying out, with the help of those persons, of activities in relation to vessels or in the provision of quays and moorings. The Commission first of all, took issue with the fact that the VAT exemption is not limited to the hiring of quays and moorings to members of non-profit-making organizations taking part in sport, but also extends to the hiring of quays and moorings to the members of associations in respect of sailing or leisure activities which cannot be equated with the practice of sport or physical education. In addition, the Commission took issue with the fact that, in order to benefit from the exemption, the associations in question must not have any employees. The Netherlands thereby, in the view the Commission, adds a condition that goes beyond what is permitted by Article 133 of the EU VAT Directive. Given the aforementioned, the Commission contends that the Netherlands’ exemption is both too broad and too narrow. The CJ ruled that the Commission’s claim is fully justified. As a result, according to the CJ, the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 24(1) and 133 in conjunction with Article 132(1)(m) of the EU VAT Directive. 10 taxation is an issue. In the view of the AG, taxation under Article 18(c) of the EU VAT Directive ensures the neutrality of the VAT system insofar as it does not influence the economic decision of the taxable person. AG Opines on requirements for a correct and complete description of services on invoices (Barlis 06 – Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA) On 18 February 2016, Advocate General Kokott delivered her Opinion in the case Barlis 06 – Investimentos Imobiliários e Turísticos SA (‘Barlis’, C-516/14). Barlis is a company active in the hotel business. During the period 2008 up to and including 2010, Barlis received services from a law firm. After performing an audit, the Portuguese tax authorities took the view that Barlis had deducted the input VAT on these services incorrectly as the description of the services performed in the invoices did not meet the requirements of national provisions. The matter ended up with the Tax Court of Arbitration, which referred questions to the CJ for a preliminary ruling. The referring court asked whether Article 226(6) of the EU VAT Directive must be interpreted as permitting the Portuguese tax authorities to regard as insufficient a description on an invoice which states ‘legal services rendered from such a date until the present date’ or merely ‘legal services rendered until the present date’, where that body may, in accordance with the principle of collaboration, obtain the additional information which it deems necessary to confirm the existence and detailed characteristics of the relevant transactions. According to the AG, the CJ should give clarification on two matters. First, it should clarify how detailed the description of a service has to be on an invoice. Second, it should express itself on the consequences of an incomplete invoice for the right to deduct input VAT. The AG Opined that an invoice which only contains a description ‘legal services’ as the nature of a service, in principle, meets the requirement of Article 226(6), paragraph 6, of the EU VAT Directive, unless national law (in line with EU VAT law) provides for a different VAT treatment of certain legal services. However, if the invoice merely mentions ‘legal services rendered until the present date’ as the scope of the service, it does not fulfil the year when that invoice was drawn up. Furthermore, in the view of the AG, Member States may adopt measures on the failure to provide the required details, as long as they comply with the principle of proportionality, and measures placing a temporal restriction on the possibility of correcting an incorrect or incomplete invoice, as long as these measures apply equally to fiscal rights derived from domestic and EU law. However, such measures must also meet the principles of equivalence and effectiveness. AG Opines on rules for taxation of private use at cessation of economic activity in respect of capital goods for which the VAT adjustment period has already expired (Jan Mateusiak) On 3 March 2016, Advocate General Kokott delivered her Opinion in the case Minister Finansów v Jan Mateusiak (C-229/15). Mr Mateusiak is planning to cease his activity as a notary. His business assets include a residential and commercial building. For the commercial part of the building Mr Mateusiak had claimed a right to deduct input VAT. Mr Mateusiak has raised the question whether taxation of that part of the building at ceasing his activity is precluded on the ground that the adjustment period for the correction of the deduction of input VAT in respect of the building has expired. Mr Mateusiak took the view that such taxation must no longer take place. The Polish tax authorities, however, opposed this view. Finally, the matter ended up with the Supreme Administrative Court, which referred to the CJ for a preliminary ruling regarding the interpretation of Article 18(c) of the EU VAT Directive. The AG opined that the adjustment period for goods under Article 187(1) of the EU VAT Directive has no effect on their taxation under Article 18(c) of that Directive, as any time limits for taxation or references to Article 187 are absent in Article 18(c). Although both systems - for adjustment of deductions and taxation of private use - have similar aims, these aims are pursued in different ways. According to the AG, there is some need for coordination between the two systems in order to uphold the principle of fiscal neutrality, under which principle double taxation, in particular, is to be avoided. In the main proceedings however, there is no indication that double 11 Customs Duties, Excises and other Indirect Taxes Council adopts conclusions on the structure and rates of excise duties applicable to manufactured tobacco On 8 March 2016, the Council adopted conclusions on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco. These conclusions follow the goal to simply and clarify the structure of excise duties on manufactured tobacco. Some products, such as e-cigarettes, do not fall into any of the categories of products subject to excise duty. In this regard the Council proposes that such situation should be monitored and, should the market share of such products show a tendency to increase, the ongoing efforts to develop an efficient taxation method for such products would have to be intensified. In this context, a solution for excise taxation of e-cigarettes, heated tobacco, other novel tobacco products and, where relevant, of products related to tobacco products, needs to be practical and foresighted, and strike the right balance between the revenue, expenses of tax administration and public health objectives. The Council considers that any amendments to the directive should, aim at the reduction of an administrative burden to businesses and the competent authorities concerned, as well as simplification of compliance requirements, without undermining the functioning of the excise duty system. Furthermore, any initiatives for adjustments of the EU legal framework on excise duties should also aim at reducing tax fraud. The conclusions come in response to a December 2015 report from the Commission on the structure and rates of excise duty applied to manufactured tobacco CJ rules on the customs classification of video multiplexers (G.E. Security) On 25 February 2016, the CJ delivered its judgment in the case G.E. Security BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (C-143/15). The case concerns the classification in the combined nomenclature (CN) of so-called video multiplexers. these requirements. Moreover, such a remark does not suffice as a reference to the date of the service. Finally, in the view of the AG, it is not sufficient for the right to deduct input VAT that the recipient of the invoice completes the lacking data on the invoice with other information, unless it concerns documents which can be considered to be part of the invoice. European Commission holds orientation debate on the future for VAT in the EU On 24 February 2016, the College of Commissioners held an orientation debate on the way forward for VAT in the EU. An Action Plan on this issue will follow. In the view of the College, the VAT system needs reform as the ‘VAT gap’ (which is the difference between the expected VAT revenue and VAT actually collected in Member States) was almost EUR 170 billion in 2013. Cross-border fraud itself is estimated to be responsible for a VAT revenue loss of about EUR 50 billion annually in the EU. At the same time, the current VAT system remains fragmented and creates significant administrative burdens, especially for SMEs and online companies. Finally, it has been announced that the system needs modernization in order to reflect innovative business models and technological progress in today’s digital environment. Opinion EESC on obligation to respect minimum standard rate On 14 January 2016, the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, on the Proposal for a Council Directive amending the EU VAT Directive on the common system of VAT, with regard to the duration of the obligation to respect a minimum standard rate. The Committee endorses the proposed directive extending the minimum standard rate for VAT. The minimum will remain at the same level as in previous periods, i.e. 15%, and will be extended for only two years as from 2016. This is because the Commission is to publish an Action Plan in spring 2016 with the aim of moving towards a simpler, more efficient and more fraudresistant definitive VAT system, tailored to the single market. During this period, more extensive discussions can be held on VAT rates. 12 In the second place, the video multiplexer performs an alarm function. For that purpose, it includes an integrated alarm system which can be configured in such a way that, when detected movements, sounds or signals so warrant, the video multiplexer activates devices which emit sound or light signals, and/or it emits a warning signal in the form of an e-mail sent to one or more of the users connected to the system (for example, the police, the fire brigade, the owner of the premises or a security company). In the third place, the video multiplexer performs a function of transmitting and receiving network data. In order to do that, it has devices enabling it to send e-mails to system users and/or to connect to the Internet, to digital networks or to an automatic data-processing machine. On 14 October 2008, G.E. Security applied to the relevant customs inspector (‘the inspector’) to issue binding tariff information for three video multiplexers. It requested that they be classified under subheading 8543 70 90 of the CN or subheading 8531 10 30 of the CN, for which the customs duties were 3.7% and 2.2% respectively. By letter of 27 November 2008, the inspector classified the three video multiplexers as a ‘video recording or reproducing apparatus’ under subheading 8521 90 00 of the CN, subject to customs duties of 13.9%. G.E. Security lodged an objection to that classification decision, which the inspector dismissed. It then brought an action against that dismissal before the Rechtbank te Haarlem (District Court, Haarlem), which declared the action to be well-founded and classified the three video multiplexers as alarms of the type used in buildings, coming under subheading 8531 10 30 of the CN. The inspector appealed against that judgment before the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam (Court of Appeals, Amsterdam). That Court held that, although the video multiplexer may, in view of its objective characteristics and properties, be deemed to be part of an alarm system, as referred to in heading 8531 of the CN, it must, pursuant to Note 2(a) to Section XVI of the CN, be classified under subheading 8521 90 00 of the CN. G.E. Security, a company specialising in the sale of hightech protection systems, developed a protection system called ‘video multiplexer’. On its website, G.E. Security presents the video multiplexer as a ‘digital video transmission recorder’. The video multiplexer is sold only to companies specialising in the sale of security installations and surveillance systems, and which provide customers with complete installation services for those installations and systems. The video multiplexer is used within security and surveillance systems or installations for buildings. More specifically, it is part of a closed circuit video-surveillance system connected to external cameras and/or external censors, such as motion and fire detectors. The video multiplexer performs three different functions. In the first place, the video multiplexer performs a video recording and reproducing function, in that it is capable of receiving signals from censors, and images and sounds from cameras, and reproducing those sounds and images on monitors. For that purpose, the video multiplexer is equipped with video and audio input points to which up to 16 cameras can be connected simultaneously. By means of the video multiplexer, the cameras can be switched on/ off and controlled remotely. It is thus possible to enlarge and reduce certain parts of the images recorded by those cameras or to block those images so as to limit recording to certain days and hours of the week and/or to certain parts of a building or site. It is also possible to ignore the movements of pets in a building. The video multiplexer also includes video output points which can connect it to one or more monitors on which it is possible to view images from a number of cameras simultaneously, and an audio output point which can be connected to an external amplifier or loudspeaker. On the other hand, the video multiplexer cannot receive television signals. Moreover, the video multiplexer can store on a hard drive the recordings of the analogue and digital images and sounds from the cameras and/or signals from the censors. Those recordings are secured to prevent them from being accidentally wiped or manipulated. They are stored in a special format and can be reproduced only using the video multiplexer or special software. 13 CJ rules on the levying of excise for oil missing during transport (BP Europa SE) On 28 January 2016, the CJ delivered its judgment in the case BP Europa SE v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Stad (C-64/15). The case concerns the levy of excises in the situation that irregularities occurred during the movement of gas oil from the Netherlands to Germany under suspension of excises. In January 2011, BP Europa dispatched 2.4 million litres of gas oil by ship under Combined Nomenclature code 2710 19 41 from a tax warehouse in the Netherlands to a tax warehouse in Germany. The transport was carried out as a movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement, as provided for in Articles 17 to 31 of Directive 2008/118. At the destination, after delivery of the gas oil, the owner of the tax warehouse in Germany found that he had received an amount 4,854 litres less than that stated on the electronic administrative document drawn up for application of the suspensive procedure, that is to say, 0.202% of the declared amount, and notified the customs authorities thereof in his acknowledgement of receipt. By decision of 16 January 2012, the customs office of the city of Hamburg levied energy tax of EUR 24.93 on the amount of missing gas oil which exceeded the 0.2% tolerance threshold generally allowed by the Germany authority. The Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) dismissed the action brought by BP Europa against the imposition of that tax. It held that the missing amount of gas oil was due to an irregularity deemed to have occurred in the customs territory and resulting in the release for consumption of that product. The Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court), seised of an appeal on a point of law, asked whether that legal assessment of the dispute arising from the application of the national law which transposed Directive 2008/118 meets the requirements of that directive, in particular, those concerning the conditions for the levying of excise duty and determination of the Member State which is entitled to levy that duty, when only part of the goods in G.E. Security lodged an appeal against the judgment of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam before the referring court. In those circumstances, the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Should CN headings 8517, 8521, 8531 and 8543 be interpreted as meaning that a product such as a video multiplexer - which was developed to form part of a system which is able to analyse images and sounds derived from cameras and alarm sensors connected to it, and which, if required, records, stores, processes and displays images and sounds on a monitor connected to it, and/or which, when the images or sounds so warrant, emits a warning signal in the form of an e-mail to one or more of the users connected to the system, and/or which can activate devices which emit sound or light signals - is to be classified under one of those headings?’ The CJ considered that the function of the product concerned is crucial for its classification in one of the CN headings 8517, 8521 and 8531. The product fulfils three functions: video recording and reproducing, an alarm function, and the function of transmitting and receiving network data. G.E. Security presents the video multiplexer on its website as a ‘digital video transmission recorder’ and that the video multiplexer is sold only to companies specialising in the sale of security installations and surveillance systems. Bearing in mind the three functions as described and the destination of the product, the CJ considered the video recording and reproducing function as the main function of the product. The other functions are merely considered as ancillary functions. On the basis of these considerations, the CJ ruled that the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that a product such as the ‘video multiplexer’ at issue in the main proceedings must, subject to the referring court’s assessment of all the facts before it, be classified in heading 8521 of that nomenclature. 14 been released for consumption in all cases in which the proof of total destruction or irretrievable loss of the missing quantity required under Article 7(4) of Directive 2008/118 cannot be furnished?’ The CJ ruled as follows: 1. Article 20(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC must be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement ends, for the purpose of that provision, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, when the consignee of those goods has found, on unloading in full from the means of transport carrying the goods in question, that there were shortages of the goods in comparison with the amount which should have been delivered to him. 2. The combined provisions of Articles 7(2)(a) and 10(2) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that: – the situations which they govern are outside that referred to in Article 7(4) of that directive and – the fact that a provision of national law transposing Article 10(2) of Directive 2008/118, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, does not expressly state that the irregularity governed by that provision of the directive must have given rise to the release for consumption of the goods concerned, such an omission cannot prevent the application of that national provision to the discovery of shortages, which of necessity entail such a release for consumption. 3. Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118 must be interpreted as meaning that it applies not only where the total amount of goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement failed to arrive at its destination, but also where only a part of those goods failed to arrive at its destination. circulation under the duty suspension arrangement failed to arrive at its destination. In those circumstances, the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘(1) Is Article 10(4) of Directive 2008/118 to be interpreted as meaning that the conditions which it lays down are fulfilled only in the case where the total quantity of goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement has not arrived at their destination, or can that rule, account being taken of Article 10(6) of Directive 2008/118, also be applied to cases in which only a portion of the excise goods moving under a duty suspension arrangement fails to arrive at the destination? (2) Is Article 20(2) of Directive 2008/118 to be interpreted as meaning that the movement of excise goods under a duty suspension arrangement does not end until the consignee has fully unloaded the means of transport which has arrived at his premises, with the result that a deficit detected during unloading is deemed to have been detected while the movement was still ongoing? (3) Does Article 10(2), in conjunction with Article 7(2) (a), of Directive 2008/118 preclude a national provision under which the competence of the Member State of destination to levy duty (apart from being excluded in the cases provided for in Article 7(4) of [that directive]) is made subject only to the detection of the occurrence of an irregularity and the impossibility of determining the place where that irregularity occurred, or is it also necessary to establish that, by being removed from the duty suspension arrangement, the excise goods have been released for consumption? (4) Is Article 7(2)(a) of Directive 2008/118 to be interpreted as meaning that, where an irregularity as provided for in Article 10(2) of [Directive 2008/118] has been detected, excise goods moved under a duty suspension arrangement which have not arrived at the destination must be assumed to have 15 of calcium which is significantly higher than the recommended daily allowance for maintaining general health or well-being. Following an objection by Salutas Pharma lodged on 26 October 2012, the Customs Office confirmed, on 13 January 2014, the classification decision for the product at issue in the main proceedings under heading 2106 of the CN, holding that the condition in additional note 1 to Chapter 30 of the CN had not been satisfied as the calcium content of the recommended maximum daily dose of that product was not equal to three times the recommended daily allowance for calcium. On 17 February 2014, Salutas Pharma brought an action before the referring court against the decision of 13 January 2014, arguing that the additional note 1 to Chapter 30 of the CN is not valid, insofar as it modifies the content of tariff heading 3004 of the CN. Alternatively, Salutas Pharma pointed out that that additional note does not lay down a requirement that the recommended daily dose of calcium of the product at issue must correspond to three times the necessary daily allowance, having regard, in particular, to the fact that a daily dose of 2,400 mg of calcium, which is three times the recommended daily allowance, exceeds the critical limit for health. The Customs Office claimed that the action should be dismissed on the grounds that additional note 1 to Chapter 30 of the CN is binding, and that it is possible to consumer up to 2,500 mg of calcium per day without adverse health effects, so that the calcium content of the maximum recommended daily dose of the effervescent tablets at issue in the main proceedings, that is 1,500 mg, cannot be regarded as being ‘significantly higher’ within the meaning of the additional note. The referring court observed that those tablets fulfil the conditions laid down by additional note 1, first paragraph, points (a) to (d) to Chapter 30 of the CN and, therefore, their classification depends, first, on the interpretation of the expression ‘significantly higher’ in the third paragraph of that additional note and, second, on the interpretation of the explanatory note relating to Chapter 30 of the CN. From the facts presented by the referring Court to the CJ and the answers to the first two questions, one must conclude that an irregularity took place during the transport of the goods concerned. It therefore seems un necessary to answer the third question that has regard to the situation that goods were missed but no irregularity was detected. CJ rules on the customs classification of effervescent tablets containing 500 mg calcium (Salutas Pharma GmbH) On 17 February 2016, the CJ delivered its judgment in the case Salutas Pharma GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hannover (C-124/15). The case concerns the classification in the combined nomenclature (CN) of ‘Calcium-Sandoz Forte 500 mg’ tablets. On 2 May 2012, Salutas Pharma applied for the issue of binding tariff information in respect of ‘Calcium-Sandoz Forte 500 mg’ tablets. It proposed that that product should be classified under subheading 3004 90 00 of the CN. The product at issue in the main proceedings consists of a preparation having calcium as its main ingredient, and is intended to be taken after being dissolved in water. Each tablet contains 500 mg of calcium. Information on the product, in particular, the dose, the area of application, and the active substances it contains can be found on the carton and in the accompanying user directions. The recommended daily dose for adults is 1 to 3 effervescent tablets, that is, 500 to 1,500 mg, and the dose for children is 1 to 2 effervescent tablets that is, 500 to 1,000 mg. The accompanying user directions indicate that the effervescent tablets are used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis. Salutas Pharma distributes the effervescent tablets exclusively through pharmacies. The Customs Office, which issued a binding tariff information on 8 October 2012, classified that product under subheading 2106 90 92 of the CN, on the ground that it does not fall within heading 3004 of the CN as its dose does not correspond to a level of consumption 16 set. In that connection, it observed that, for the purposes of the tariff classification of goods, the latter must not be differentiated according to a given standard market practice or medical appropriateness. In those circumstances, the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court, Hamburg) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Is the CN to be interpreted as meaning that effervescent tablets with a calcium content of 500 mg per tablet that are used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis and for which the maximum recommended daily dose for adults indicated on the label is 3 tablets (= 1,500 mg) are to be classified under subheading 3004 90 00?’ The CJ ruled that the Combined Nomenclature must be interpreted as meaning that a product, such as effervescent tablets with a calcium content of 500 mg per tablet that is used for the prevention and treatment of a calcium deficiency and to support a special therapy for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, and for which the maximum recommended daily dose for adults indicated on the label is 1 500 mg, falls within heading 3004 of that nomenclature. AG Opinion on the notion of ‘commercial use’ for the exemption of duty for temporarily imported helicopters (Robert Fuchs A.G.) On 18 February 2016, the AG delivered his opinion in the case Robert Fuchs A.G. v Hauptzollamt Lörrach (C-80/15). The case concerns the notion of ‘commercial use’ for the application of a duty exemption for helicopters that are temporarily brought from Switzerland into EU territory in order to give flight training. Fuchs is a flight and maintenance undertaking. Its seat is in Switzerland, but it is also registered in Germany. It offers, among other things, services in the helicopter flight business, in particular, flight training for private individuals and professional pilots. In that connection, that court considered that the explanatory note seems to require that, in order for a preparation such as the product at issue in the main proceedings to be included in that chapter as a ‘vitamin or mineral preparation’ its vitamin or mineral content must be much higher, generally at least three times higher than the recommended daily allowance. Therefore, as the recommended daily allowance for calcium is 800 mg, the calcium content of the recommended daily dose of a product such as that at issue in the main proceedings enabling it to be classified under heading 3004 of the CN would have to be 2,400 mg. As regards the product at issue in the main proceedings, its maximum content is 1,500 mg per day. However, the referring court observed that the calcium content is more than 85% of the recommended daily allowance of calcium. Also, it considered that such an amount may be treated as ‘significantly higher’, within the meaning of additional note 1 to Chapter 30, even though it is not three times higher than the recommended daily allowance. It also considered that the explanatory note relating to Chapter 30 of the CN, by its use of the word ‘generally’, appears to refer to possible exceptions. Therefore, according to that court, it is conceivable that, in order to classify a product under heading 3004 of the CN, a vitamin or mineral content for that product which is less than three times the recommended daily allowance should suffice in exceptional cases. Moreover, that court pointed out that there are no preparations to be taken orally on the market with a calcium content three times higher than the recommended daily allowance and that it cannot be concluded that, as a general rule, a daily dose of 2,400 mg is harmless to health. However, the referring court observed that, while many factors support an interpretation according to which the ‘significantly higher’ content of vitamins or minerals must be subject to a differentiated assessment, depending to the type of vitamin or mineral, it is conceivable that the practical requirements of sound administration require a clear and easily identifiable limit for that content to be 17 Implementing Regulation since they were not used ‘for the transport of persons for remuneration or the industrial or commercial transport of goods, whether or not for remuneration’. The remuneration paid by the trainee pilots was received for the training, not as payment for the transport. The Customs Office, Lörrach, on the other hand, contended that Fuchs had used the helicopters commercially. In its view, persons were transported for remuneration. It argued that the notion of transportation is not limited to cases involving a change in location. Rather, it depends on whether there are persons in the means of transport. In light of this disagreement on the meaning of ‘commercial use’, by order of 17 February 2015, received at the Court Registry on 20 February 2015, the Finanzgericht, BadenWürttemberg (Finance Court, Baden-Württemberg) decided to stay the proceedings before it and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling: ‘Must Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the Customs Code as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/93 be interpreted as meaning that remunerated flight training with helicopters in which a trainer and trainee are in the helicopter also amounts to a commercial use of a means of transport?’ The AG considered that the main purpose of the training flights is not the transport of persons. He therefore, has recommended to the Court that it answers the question referred to it by the Finanzgericht, Baden-Württemberg (Finance Court, Baden-Württemberg,) as follows: ‘Remunerated flight training with helicopters, in which a trainer and trainee are in the helicopter, does not amount to a ‘commercial use’ of a means of transport within the meaning of Article 555(1)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the Customs Code as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2286/2003 of 18 December 2003’. By a decision of 13 October 2009, the Hauptzollamt Lörrach (Customs Office, Lörrach, Germany) granted an exemption to Fuchs from the obligation to land at a customs airfield (‘Zollflugplatzzwang’), in respect of 10 individually listed helicopters registered in Fuchs’ name in Switzerland. In 2009 and 2010, those helicopters were flown into the customs territory of the EU. The helicopters were flown either by a flying instructor employed by Fuchs or by a trainee pilot in the presence of a flying instructor and landed in the special airfield in Bremgarten (Germany). Following entry into the customs territory of the EU from Switzerland, training flights were conducted. They began and ended on the special airfield in Bremgarten, without leaving the customs territory of the EU. Subsequently, the helicopters were flown from the special airfield in Bremgarten back into Switzerland. By a decision of 23 May 2011, the Customs Office, Lörrach, revoked Fuchs’ exemption from the obligation to land at a customs airfield. It subsequently fixed the duties owed by Fuchs for the use made of the helicopters for training purposes. Fuchs’ customs debt allegedly arose under Article 204(1)(a) of the Customs Code for breach of the obligations stemming from the temporary importation procedure. Fuchs had, it was said, used its helicopters commercially without having been granted the corresponding aviation law licence. By a decision of 2 April 2012, the Customs Office, Lörrach, rejected Fuchs’ objection to the imposition of the customs duty as unfounded. Fuchs challenged this decision before the Finanzgericht, Baden-Württemberg (Finance Court, Baden-Württemberg), which led to the present request for a preliminary ruling. In its action before the national court, Fuchs submitted that the requirements for total relief from import duties for the temporary importation of means of transport had been satisfied. It argued that the helicopters had not been used for commercial purposes within the meaning of the 18 Correspondents ● Gerard Blokland (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam) ● Kees Bouwmeester (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam) ● Almut Breuer (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam) ● Robert van Esch (Loyens & Loeff Rotterdam) ● Raymond Luja (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam; Maastricht University) ● Arjan Oosterheert (Loyens & Loeff Zurich) ● Lodewijk Reijs (Loyens & Loeff Rotterdam) ● Bruno da Silva (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam; University of Amsterdam) ● Patrick Vettenburg (Loyens & Loeff Rotterdam) ● Ruben van der Wilt (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam) www.loyensloeff.com About Loyens & Loeff Loyens & Loeff N.V. is the first firm where attorneys at law, tax advisers and civil-law notaries collaborate on a large scale to offer integrated professional legal services in the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg and Switzerland. Loyens & Loeff is an independent provider of corporate legal services. Our close cooperation with prominent international law and tax law firms makes Loyens & Loeff the logical choice for large and medium-size companies operating domestically or internationally. Editorial board For contact, mail: eutaxalert@loyensloeff.com: ● René van der Paardt (Loyens & Loeff Rotterdam) ● Thies Sanders (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam) ● Dennis Weber (Loyens & Loeff Amsterdam; University of Amsterdam) Editors ● Patricia van Zwet ● Bruno da Silva Although great care has been taken when compiling this newsletter, Loyens & Loeff N.V. does not accept any responsibility whatsoever for any consequences arising from the information in this publication being used without its consent. The information provided in the publication is intended for general informational purposes and can not be considered as advice. www.loyensloeff.com Amsterdam Arnhem Brussels Dubai Hong Kong London Luxembourg New York Paris Rotterdam Singapore Tokyo Zurich 16-03-EN-EUTA

Compare jurisdictions:Arbitration

"I find the newsfeeds to be extremely beneficial as a means of keeping up with changes in the law. I've made a regular practice of sharing a number of the items with members of our HR staff. Please keep up the good work."